The High Court · 2025

THE STATE OF TELANGANA, Municipal Adrninistration Department Represented by its secretary MA{.JD secretariat, Hyderabad. THE coMlsSloNER, o/o. The Municipal council Manikonda Road No.S, sri Ram Nagar Colony KPR Colony, trlanikonda, RR Dist. 500 075 KEESARA RAVI KUMAR, S/o. Keesara Balraj, aged about 41 years occ. Business, R/o. H.No. 3-10-32 Alkapur Township, Neknampur Village Gandipet Village, Ranga Reddy Distril]t ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Cons{itution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affkJavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a wriUs or order/s more particularly one in the nature of Writ, of Mandamus. (a) Declaring the inaction of Respondent No. 2 in removing the unauthorized construction being m.ade by the Respondent No. 3 over 3g02 Sq. Yds., in sy. No. 114 of Neknampur viilage, Gandipet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, illegal and arbitrary, (b) Directing Respondent No. 2 to forthwith seize, seal, and demolish the unauthorized construction made by Respondent No. 3 (c) Directing Respondent No. 2 to rercke/cancel the building permissions vide Permit Nos. 00S3/BP/312812023 and OO841BPt3128t2O23, obtained by misrepresentation and fraud, (d) Directing Respondent No. 2 to register an First lnformation Report (FlR) against Respondent No' 3 under section 177 of the Telangana MuniciPalities Act IA NO: 1 oF 2022; PetitionurrderSectionl5lCPCprayingthatinthecircumstancesstated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct Respondent No. 2 to register FIR against the Respondent No' 3 under Section 177 of ihe Telangana Municipalities Act' lA NO: 2 OF 202!i PetitionutrderSectionl5lCPCprayingthatinthecircumstancesstated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to direct Respondent No. 2 to demorish the unauthorized construction made by the Respondent No. 3 in land 3902 Sq- Yds., in sy' No' 1 14 of Neknamptrr village' Gandipet Manderl, Ranga Reddy District, as per building permissions of 1196 Sq' yds., vide pernrit No.0083/BP/3128:2O23 & 1194 Sq' Yds'' vide permit No' 0084/BP/ 3128t2O23 been granted by the Respondent No' 2' T'hese permissions have been applied by the Respondent No. 3, the Respondent No' 2 has granted permission for an extent of 2390 Sq' Yds" out of 6292 Sq' Yds' Gounsel for the Petitioner: SRl. YAHIYA BIN MoHSIN AL KASERI counselfortheRespondentNo.l:GPFoRMGPLADMNURBANDEv Counsel for the Respondent No'2: SRI K' LAXMAIAHA' SC Counselforth'eRespondentNo'3:SRIT'BALAMOHANREDDY The Court made the following: ORDER I I i THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. WJAYSEN REDDY ORDER: (ORAL) This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking the foilowing relief, "".to issue a writ/s or order/s more particularly one in the nature'of Writ of Mandamus: (a) Declaring the inacjion.o{Respondent No.2 in removing the unauthorized constr,ctioa b"ing *ua" by the n*p.ra""i Nr.l over 3902 sq. yds., in sy.No.l t4 ;! N"k";;;-village, Gandiper Mandal, Rang-a Reday Disfrict, iflegal andiil*O, (bl ?i.:"rr-n* Respondent Uo.Z to fortfr*itn ,"io,-..uf _a demolish the unauthorized *^t r"do" made Uy lLrporra"rt No.3 (c) Directirrg Respondent No.2 to revoke/cancer the building permissions vide permit Nos.00g3/Bpr3r2g/2023 and 0084/BP/3 tzt/2a23.b. o,iir* uy -ir*plsentation and fraud; (d) Directing Respondent No.i to r.drt"r an First lnformation (FIR) against Respondent rvo.5-',roa", section 177 of rhe |e.nort Telangana Municipalities Act and...,, 2' Heard Mr- yahiya Bin Mohsin Ar Kaseri, rearned counser for the petitioner; I\'tr. K-Laxmaiatr, learned standing counser for respondent No.2 and I\4i. T.Bala Mohan Reddy, rearned counser for respondent No.3.

3. The case of the petitioner is that originally, Iand admeasurirrg Ac. r. l2 guntas in survey No.l14 of Neknampur vilage, Gandipet Mandar, Ranga Reddy District, is ancestrar property ,Jr*u* to the grandfather of the petitioner, Mr. Syed Rasoor. Due to disputes arnong the family members regarding the division of the property, a suit for partition was fired in -". v/4 2 O.S.No.l l. of 2005 by the petitioner and other family members before the learned xtII Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar. During th,: pendency of the said suit, some of the plaintiffs and defendants sold the said property to respondent No.3 under registered sale deed bearing document No.587 of 2022, dated 14.12.2022. Based on the sale deed, respondent No.3 has obtained NALA conversion proceedings and later obtained lruilding permissions vide permit Nos.0083/BP/3128D023 and 0084/BP/3 128/2023 dated t7.05.2o23 for an extent of 1196 square yards and 1194 square yards respectively, totaling 2390 sqtare yards out of the total extent of 6292 square yards in Neknampur Viltage, Gandipet Mandal, Ranga Recldy District. [t is submitted that in an implead application filed by the petitioner in o.S.No.l I of 2009, notice was issued to respondent No.3 herein. The petitioner has submitted several representations to respondent No.2 including the representation dated 1t.07.2025 requesting to cancel the building pt:rmissions granted to respondent No.3. It was also brought to the notice of r'espondent No.2 that respondent No.3 is making constnrctions in deviation of the sanctioned plan. However, respondent No.2 did not take any action, as such, the petitioner is constrained to approach this Court. 4- Learned counsel for respondent No.3 submitted that he has entered appearance on behalf of respondent No.3. It is submitted that the building permissions were duly obtained; construction was carried out in accordance 3 with the sanctioned plans and two Occupancy Certificates have bren issued in his favour. Learned counsel furttrer zubmitted that respondent NoJ and his family members own the enl@ extent of 6292 square yards and in total, . .,/ five building permissions have been obtained.

5. Learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that all five owners who obtained building permissions have constructed buildings strictly in accordance with the approved plans and that five Occupancy Certificates have been issued. tt is further submitted that there is no deviation sf the sanctioned plans, as alleged by the petitioner.

6. [n view of the same, there are no merits in ttrc writ petition and the same is accordingly, dismissed. Howevor, the petitioner is at liberty to seek appropriate orders in pending suit i.e.-O.S.No.1l of 2009. No order as to costs. \ I To, //TRUE COPYII SD/.A.SRINIVAS REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFTCER

1. one cc to SRt. yAHtyA BtN MoHStN AL KASERI, Adrrocate topucl 2. Two ccs to Gp FoR MUNtctpAL ADMtNtsrRAnoN AND unenN DEVELopt\rENT ,High court forthe state of retangan", 3. one cc to sRr. T. BALA MOHAN REDDY, novocite tcipudi 4. One CC to SRt. K. LAXMA|AH, SC tOpUCJ 5. Two CD Copies "invoairord tourl BM ef- € l,r "r' 6 HIGH COI.'RT DATED i2510912025 ORDER WP.No.29264 of 2025 TF i) L) ( * lHE S 61 t. It: 2026 * r) DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS /@ v ^i)-